Specific Performance – Refund of Advance Sale Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement or, alternatively, refund of the advance paid – Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- – High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- – Supreme Court examines the evidence to determine the correctness of the High Court's findings [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Supreme Court finds that the plaintiff failed to provide positive evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional advance – Agreement and endorsement scrutinized – Lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies noted [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's modification of the refund amount – Confirms that the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, not Rs. 18,00,000/- as claimed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].

Arrest under PMLA – Legality – Appeal against the High Court’s rejection of a criminal writ petition challenging the arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) – Supreme Court examines compliance with statutory preconditions under Section 19 of the PMLA – Emphasizes mandatory recording and furnishing of ‘reasons to believe’ – Judicial scrutiny of the validity of arrest under Section 19(1) upheld – Arrest found non-compliant with statutory requirements, deemed illegal [Paras 1-40].

Statutory Safeguards – Compliance – DoE’s argument of non-furnishing of ECIR and grounds of arrest distinguished – Court mandates that arrestee must be provided with reasons to believe and grounds of arrest for judicial review – Ensures the balance between investigation requirements and protection of personal liberty [Paras 22-38].

Judicial Review – Scope – Court delineates scope of judicial review in matters of arrest under PMLA – Establishes that judicial scrutiny must confirm compliance with statutory conditions and constitutional rights – Prevents arbitrary exercise of power by enforcing stringent safeguards against pre-trial arrest [Paras 39-43].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 22(1) – Court reiterates the importance of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) – Emphasizes that the power to arrest must be exercised with care and accountability to uphold the constitutional rights [Paras 10-12, 15-16].

Preconditions for Arrest – Interpretation of Section 19(1) of PMLA – Court interprets the expressions “reason to believe”, “guilty of an offence punishable under this Act”, and “material” – Highlights the necessity for objective assessment of material before forming ‘reason to believe’ – Specifies that mere suspicion is insufficient for arrest under PMLA [Paras 9, 24-28, 31-36].

Comparison with Cr.P.C. – Distinction between Sections 41 and 167 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of PMLA – Court notes stricter safeguards under PMLA – Emphasizes that judicial scrutiny is necessary to ensure compliance with higher standards set by PMLA for arrest [Paras 40-42].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Arrest declared illegal due to non-compliance with Section 19(1) of PMLA – Orders of arrest and remand set aside – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate relief for damages and other consequences arising from the illegal arrest [Para 44-45].

Suspension of Sentence – Petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court – Petitioner aged seventy and 90% visually impaired – High Court’s failure to consider age, health, and two years already served – Supreme Court emphasizes need for application of correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences – Casual and mechanical approach by High Court criticized [Paras 1-6].

Bail Pending Appeal – Petitioner’s health and age significant factors – High Court’s orders lacked reasoning and consideration of exceptional circumstances – Supreme Court orders release on bail pending appeal with conditions as deemed fit by trial court [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellant, a Forest Section Officer, convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000 as bribe from the complainant, a saw-mill operator, to refrain from booking a case for illegal possession of teakwood – The complainant's testimony contradicted by call detail records – High Court's affirmation of trial court’s judgment found unsustainable due to lack of credible evidence supporting demand and acceptance of bribe [Paras 1-55].

Procedural Lapses – Trap Proceedings – DySP, ACB, failed to verify the demand of bribe independently before organizing the trap – No telephonic conversation recorded between the appellant and complainant – No recording device placed on the complainant during the trap – Absence of independent shadow witnesses undermined the integrity of the trap proceedings – High Court overlooked these procedural deficiencies [Paras 30-33, 47-48].

Evidentiary Gaps – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Sole eyewitness, the complainant’s friend, declared interested witness due to close association – Complainant's version contradicted by call detail records which showed no calls exchanged between appellant and complainant post-17th January 2023, refuting the demand of bribe on 21st, 22nd, and 23rd January 2023 – Prosecution failed to present corroborative evidence from an independent witness [Paras 34-41, 49-51].

Defence of Planting Evidence – Defence claimed that the tainted money was planted in appellant’s bag by the complainant – Cross-examination revealed complainant handled appellant’s bag, providing opportunity for planting – Appellant’s hand wash not tested for phenolphthalein, failing to confirm handling of tainted money – Defence’s alternative hypothesis found plausible, creating reasonable doubt [Paras 54-55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Proof of Demand – Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) followed – Demand and acceptance of bribe can be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence – Prosecution’s circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove demand – Allegations by complainant unsupported by independent verification or tangible evidence [Paras 26-28, 52-55].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Court emphasized the necessity of independent verification and reliable evidence in corruption cases [Para 55].

Water Sharing Dispute – Writ Petition under Article 32 – Petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, requested directions for the release of surplus water from Hathni Kund Barrage by Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to alleviate acute water shortage in Delhi – UYRB convened an emergent meeting and discussed the MoU between Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and the additional water required by Delhi – Himachal Pradesh initially agreed to release 137 cusecs of surplus water but later retracted – Haryana contended similar water scarcity and inability to provide additional water – Court acknowledged the complexity of inter-state water sharing and emphasized resolution through UYRB – Directed the Delhi Government to formally request Haryana for 150 cusecs of additional water on humanitarian grounds and UYRB to decide expeditiously [Paras 1-13].

Inter-State Water Dispute – Supreme Court's Jurisdiction – Court expressed limitations in expertise to adjudicate complex inter-state water disputes – Referred the matter to UYRB, emphasizing the necessity for a specialized body to handle such issues – Highlighted past orders and developments regarding water treatment and distribution in Delhi and Haryana – Recommended Delhi Government to take measures to prevent wastage of water during the crisis period [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directed UYRB to convene a meeting to address Delhi's formal request for additional water and decide by 14th June 2024 – All interim applications disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure - Indigent Person Status - Filing of Appeal - The appellant, injured in a motor accident, was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but had not received the amount. The High Court dismissed her application to file an appeal as an indigent person based on the awarded compensation. The Supreme Court held that the actual receipt of the compensation amount is essential for determining indigency status. The Court underscored the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude access to justice. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appellant was granted permission to appeal as an indigent person. [Paras 1-20]

Eligibility to File as Indigent - Analysis - It was observed that the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application without conducting the necessary inquiry to verify her indigency status at the time of filing the appeal. The statutory requirements under Order XLIV, Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met. [Paras 15-18]

Decision - Grant of Indigent Status for Filing Appeal - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and permitted the appellant to file the appeal as an indigent person. The High Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal within six months. [Paras 19-20]